Jesus Christ, are you people serious? Do you realize how barbaric you sound, sitting here salivating at the idea of killing somebody? A complete stranger, no less. I mean, christ, I probably care less about any individual human life than any one of you, but to act like fans at the state championship football game is just depraved. All arguments, moral or practical, about the death penalty aside, why are you seemingly so damn pleased about the idea of ending another person's life? To me, the fact that we even need a death penalty means our society has failed in some manner, as it means a part of us is so out of line that there is no other remedy for it, but sometimes it has to be done. But in no way should it be something we actively root for. I would think this would be a time to stop and think about what went wrong, and how to prevent it in the future, not to break out a keg and celebrate.

Originally posted by eviljonhunt81Jesus Christ, are you people serious? Do you realize how barbaric you sound, sitting here salivating at the idea of killing somebody? A complete stranger, no less. I mean, christ, I probably care less about any individual human life than any one of you, but to act like fans at the state championship football game is just depraved. All arguments, moral or practical, about the death penalty aside, why are you seemingly so damn pleased about the idea of ending another person's life? To me, the fact that we even need a death penalty means our society has failed in some manner, as it means a part of us is so out of line that there is no other remedy for it, but sometimes it has to be done. But in no way should it be something we actively root for. I would think this would be a time to stop and think about what went wrong, and how to prevent it in the future, not to break out a keg and celebrate.

It's pretty simple really - I really have no strong opinions either way on the death penalty. If Scott Peterson got life in prison - I would have been OK with that judgment.

But if you are going to HAVE a death penalty, and you give that sentence, I think you should carry it out and not play all sorts of games, in an effort to put it off.

I disagree with you that "our society has failed" if we need a death penalty - I think that is way over dramatic. But if you think we shouldn't have one, that is what legislation is for. The fact is that in California, through the representative government, the people have approved the death penalty. To me, that means you carry it out, not fart around for three decades because "Oh well, the people got it wrong, so we will stall until the guy dies of natural causes."

We have the sentence - he was given it. If the courts are going to disregard the will of the people because they have taken it upon themselves to go past interpreting the law, and instead decide to impose their own morality, our form of government then becomes a joke. We might as well hand the judges a crown and send the legislature home, because they really serve no purpose anymore.

Originally posted by eviljonhunt81Jesus Christ, are you people serious? Do you realize how barbaric you sound, sitting here salivating at the idea of killing somebody?

Almost as barbaric as killing a 8 month pregnant woman, dumping her body, screwing a skank whore and lying about it?

A complete stranger, no less. I mean, christ, I probably care less about any individual human life than any one of you, but to act like fans at the state championship football game is just depraved. All arguments, moral or practical, about the death penalty aside, why are you seemingly so damn pleased about the idea of ending another person's life?

Because some crimes are so horrible that the person deserves to be killed as punishment. This one in particular.

To me, the fact that we even need a death penalty means our society has failed in some manner, as it means a part of us is so out of line that there is no other remedy for it, but sometimes it has to be done. But in no way should it be something we actively root for.

So, if it were your wife and unborn child and not HIS wife and unborn child, would you not want to break his neck? Slit his throat? Shoot him? I am sure I would.

I would think this would be a time to stop and think about what went wrong, and how to prevent it in the future, not to break out a keg and celebrate.

Unfortunately 'what went wrong' will never be known, because he hasnt/wont discuss it. So, its irrelevant. There are a few BILLION people on the planet, I am quite sure if we kill this sorry piece of shit, its not really going to make a difference in the big picture. In fact, every single person tried and convicted and sentenced to death should be PUT TO DEATH as soon as they leave the courthouse following thier final appeal. Should we break out a keg and celebrate? Nope, but perhaps a nice little keg party remembering those who were brutally murdered and how much they meant to thier families might be in order. Or, are they somehow less important than the criminals who murdered them and dumped them in the ocean?

Personally, I think the death penalty is the ultimate in big government. You don't get any bigger than executing your own citizens.

But what I really find "hysterical" is how people complain about the legal system letting OJ off, letting Blake off, letting all of these "guilty" people off, and yet pretend - in their support of capital punishment - that it's completely impossible to execute innocent people.

But really, the state simply shouldn't be allowed to execute it's own people, regardless of the crime. That just should not be the role, in any capacity, of our government.

Originally posted by StaggerLeeSo, if it were your wife and unborn child and not HIS wife and unborn child, would you not want to break his neck? Slit his throat? Shoot him?

Absolutely - no doubt. But that doesn't mean it would be the right thing for the GOVERNMENT to do. And personally, of all the things I want my tax dollars going to support, the death penalty in any capacity is not one of them.

"On [Election Night], the voice of the people was heard. I promise not to repeat what they said out of respect for the mentally-retarded."

Fair enough Leroy, and yes, some people who MAY be innocent have been executed. Its sad. However, in this day and age of DNA, there should be little doubt that anybody convicted, in the past 5 years or so, are guilty. I say fix the system, so that it is beyond all doubt that a person convicted of a capitol crime is the one who is actually the guilty party, and make the sentence swift and sure.

Originally posted by LeroyPersonally, I think the death penalty is the ultimate in big government. You don't get any bigger than executing your own citizens.

But what I really find "hysterical" is how people complain about the legal system letting OJ off, letting Blake off, letting all of these "guilty" people off, and yet pretend - in their support of capital punishment - that it's completely impossible to execute innocent people.

But really, the state simply shouldn't be allowed to execute it's own people, regardless of the crime. That just should not be the role, in any capacity, of our government.

Originally posted by StaggerLeeSo, if it were your wife and unborn child and not HIS wife and unborn child, would you not want to break his neck? Slit his throat? Shoot him?

Absolutely - no doubt. But that doesn't mean it would be the right thing for the GOVERNMENT to do. And personally, of all the things I want my tax dollars going to support, the death penalty in any capacity is not one of them.

I am curious as to what you think a fair alternative would be. The death penalty is horrible, but who else, besides the government, should assume the responsibility of such a punishment? Scott Peterson was found guilty of a crime which obviously was deemed deserving of death. What's the better way?

Jfkfc, spending the rest of your life in a tiny cell with one dim light, no books or any form of stimulation, just enough food of the blandest sort to keep you alive. Never leaving the cell except for medical attention and no visitors or any proof of an outside world. This is a fair alternative.

Such prison conditions as that you described would be just begging for legal action (under the cruel and unusual clause of the Constitution) that I'm willing to bet most governments are not willing to deal with. I would also anticipate human rights groups would also go after this with just about as much vigor as they do the death penalty. And frankly, it could well be found unconstitutional.

The Bored are already here. Idle hands are the devil's workshop. And no... we won't kill dolphins. But koalas are fair game.

Honestly, I think the whole prison system needs to be redeveloped. It fails us miserably in terms of rehabilitation. Most people in prison are not like Scott Peterson - they either need treatment for substance abuse, psychiatric treatement, etc, all of which is woefully missing from the current system outside of what religous groups provide. And they learn more about being a criminal inside than they do outside.

There's this thought that if you are convicted of "breaking the law", then we should throw you in a dark whole and forget about you. That serves no purpose. Not to mention the economics of it all.

As far as the death penalty, I just don't see the point. Do I think Peterson is guilty? Yes. Is it possible, even remotely, that he's not? Sure. On that alone, I wouldn't execute him.

(edited by Leroy on 22.3.05 1109)"On [Election Night], the voice of the people was heard. I promise not to repeat what they said out of respect for the mentally-retarded."

Originally posted by DrDirtJfkfc, spending the rest of your life in a tiny cell with one dim light, no books or any form of stimulation, just enough food of the blandest sort to keep you alive. Never leaving the cell except for medical attention and no visitors or any proof of an outside world. This is a fair alternative.

I cannot fathom being in the situation of the victim's family, but try as I may, I would think any further drawn breath for said convicted killer to be most unfair. The prospective penalty for such actions (as Peterson has been convicted of) stands before the penalized-to-be, and should be treated as the tool of deterrence it should be. Those same tax dollars will be used to light that dim light, to feed that bored and lonely person, and to provide medical care for the convicted.

Peterson may be a Grade A (cnn.com) inmate: '"Grade A" inmates are allowed to spend five hours a day outside in a common yard, where they can exercise and play chess. They can have showers three times a week, attend religious services and receive mail, phone calls and visitors. The prisoners also may keep a television -- which they pay for themselves -- in their cells.'

He also may be able to visit the library (news10online.net): 'On death row, Peterson will not be allowed to participate in vocational or educational programs, although will be permitted to visit the prison library and allowed to pursue individual study in his cell. Peterson will be allowed visitors for periods of up to two hours Thursday through Sunday afternoons. He will be able to confer with his attorney Monday through Friday.'

While surely no person would choose this life for themselves, it's a safe bet the victim's family wouldn't choose this life for Peterson...

I don't believe the dealth penalty is a deterrent at all. Did it deter Scott Peterson? The dealth penalty serving as a deterrent assumes that murderers are rational. That they're weighing their options before they kill someone. Most murders are the result of irrational emotional behaviour like rage, anger, revenge, desperation, etc. The death penalty does nothing in these cases.

I'm sure the victim's family almost always feels the need for retribution but that's why there are laws in place. But much like the murderer, who paid no attention to the so-called deterrent of the death penalty, they're not making a rational decision. They're listening to the same irrational emotions as the murderer.

The fact is that the legal system is far from perfect and there is no coming back from the death penalty. I do not trust the same legal system that let seemingly obvious murderers like OJ Simpson walk, to decide who lives and who dies.

Originally posted by Canada OnlineThe removal of capital punishment from the Canadian Criminal Code in 1976 has not led to an increase in the murder rate in Canada. In fact, Statistics Canada reports that the murder rate for 2003 was the lowest since 1967 at 1.73 murders for every 100,000 population.

The total number of murders in Canada in 2003 was 548, 34 fewer than in 2002.

Murder rates in Canada are generally about a third of those in the United States.

"When did they pass a law that says the people who make my sandwich have to be wearing gloves? I'm not comfortable with this. I don't want glove residue all over my food; it's not sanitary. Who knows where these gloves have been?" - George Carlin

Originally posted by ges7184Such prison conditions as that you described would be just begging for legal action (under the cruel and unusual clause of the Constitution) that I'm willing to bet most governments are not willing to deal with. I would also anticipate human rights groups would also go after this with just about as much vigor as they do the death penalty. And frankly, it could well be found unconstitutional.

I don't disagree but he asked what would be a fair alternative. Maybe we should give him a choice between what I described and the needle. Still unfair but what he did dosen't seem terribly fair either. And I am anti-death penalty.

And fuel, the death penalty isn't really a deterent but vengance. Most people committing crimes like this bastard aren't thnking rationally and also don't think they will get caught. The only possible way to link deterrence with the death penalty would be public executions and not with something as sanitized as lethal injection.

Originally posted by StaggerLeeSo, if it were your wife and unborn child and not HIS wife and unborn child, would you not want to break his neck? Slit his throat? Shoot him? I am sure I would.

It's hard to say what'd we do until the situation actually arose. However, as a Christian who takes the teaching to forgive others seriously, I would hope not. My hope is I'd be willing to pray for them, and hope they can reach an area of peace some day, find God. The teaching to be like Jesus is an extremely serious one for Christians, and Jesus would not have wished death on others.

Many people are not Christians, and possibly your not Stagger. But since you put the question out there, I can only respond where I am in my life.

Originally posted by StaggerLeeUnfortunately 'what went wrong' will never be known, because he hasnt/wont discuss it. So, its irrelevant. There are a few BILLION people on the planet, I am quite sure if we kill this sorry piece of shit, its not really going to make a difference in the big picture. In fact, every single person tried and convicted and sentenced to death should be PUT TO DEATH as soon as they leave the courthouse following thier final appeal. Should we break out a keg and celebrate? Nope, but perhaps a nice little keg party remembering those who were brutally murdered and how much they meant to thier families might be in order. Or, are they somehow less important than the criminals who murdered them and dumped them in the ocean?

Again, for me, every life, no matter what, is worth something. Every life is someone who can someday find peace and life in Jesus, and I simply don't feel anyone should force an end to that life, for that truly does nothing to make this world a better place.

The victims of murderers ARE important, very much so. But, in the end, so are the murderers. Again, just for me, they are extremely important to God, and there is simply no crime that makes someone unredeemable in God's eyes. How then can I (or anyone) decide it's okay to take a life precious in God's eyes?

Again, this simply where I am in my views. Many do not accept the Christian God, and that is certainly their choice. But I also feel my views have a place in discussion, and thus there they are.

Imagine no possessionsI wonder if you canNo need for greed or hungerA brotherhood of manImagine all the peopleSharing all the world

You may say that I'm a dreamerBut I'm not the only oneI hope someday you'll join usAnd the world will live as one

I think it is wrong-headed to look at prison, or the death penalty, as a means of rehabilitation OR as a deterrent. It is punishment, plain and simple. I don't want people to go to jail because they need to "heal," I want them sent there because they did something wrong and deserved to be punished. I don't support the death penalty as a deterrent, I support it because when people commit certain heinous crimes, they deserve to die.

It is a nice idea to think that the government can mold people into ideal citizens, but I don't see that as their job. They are to make the laws, and punish people who don't follow them. Maybe you don't think it is right to punish someone by killing them, but to say you SHOULDN'T do it because it doesn't really stop people from committing the worst crimes isn't really all that good a reason to do away with the practice.

And sure, I am willing to give cases like this time to see if new evidence comes to light. But I think a 5 year process is all that is required - 30 years is taking things too far. At some point Scott's punishment should be carried out.

Originally posted by Pool-BoyI think it is wrong-headed to look at prison, or the death penalty, as a means of rehabilitation OR as a deterrent. It is punishment, plain and simple. I don't want people to go to jail because they need to "heal," I want them sent there because they did something wrong and deserved to be punished. I don't support the death penalty as a deterrent, I support it because when people commit certain heinous crimes, they deserve to die.

It is a nice idea to think that the government can mold people into ideal citizens, but I don't see that as their job. They are to make the laws, and punish people who don't follow them. Maybe you don't think it is right to punish someone by killing them, but to say you SHOULDN'T do it because it doesn't really stop people from committing the worst crimes isn't really all that good a reason to do away with the practice.

And sure, I am willing to give cases like this time to see if new evidence comes to light. But I think a 5 year process is all that is required - 30 years is taking things too far. At some point Scott's punishment should be carried out.

So say hypothetically someone else, maybe a fellow prisoner or a prison guard or something, kills Scott Peterson while he's locked up. Should that person be punished if they're just giving Peterson what he has been determined by a judge and jury to be deserving of?

And my understanding is that the big problem with murder is that nobody deserves to die at another human's hands. So the people who deem Peterson worthy of death are immune but Peterson himself, who according to this jury decided his wife deserved to die, deserves to die for it?

Would Peterson not deserve to die if he had killed a woman who was eight months pregnant but lived a life you thought was immoral or harmful to society? I mean, if the government is justified in killing a person they think deserves it, than logic would dictate that it's not as bad to kill, say, a drug-smuggling hooker, as it is to kill his seemingly innocent wife (disclaimer: maybe his wife is not "seemingly innocent." I don't know or care.). Am I correct in inferring that you place value on human lives in this manner?

EDIT: More questions:

Should all murders be punished by death? If no, what makes one less bad than the next?

Many killers, especially ones with race or religion as a motive, have claimed to be doing it for the betterment of society. How are their claims of, say, Hitler or Ted Kaczynski (who was protesting industrialization, which his infamous manifesto called a disaster for the human race), less valid than yours/the government's?